President Bush recently visited Europe in a five-day fence-mending
journey. Everywhere he went, if there was a persistent theme it was
that `Iran should not have a nuclear weapon.' In that he reached
agreement with leaders of the EU countries.[1] On the final leg of
his tour he even tried to persuade his post-9/11 on-again and off-
again `buddy' Vladimir Putin in the Slovak capital of Bratislava
into not selling nuclear fuel to Iran. Putin reminded Bush that he
had no proof that Iran wanted to acquire the nuclear technology for
anything but peaceful means.

Bush also tried to sell his version of `freedom' and `democracy' to
the Russian leader. There again he miserably failed to induce Putin,
who in his turn did not fail to mention that Russia would follow its
own version of the both, and did not need any lecturing on the
subject of democracy from someone who would not have graced
presidency if were it not for those appointed judges in the Supreme
Court that decided the case (four years ago), in spite of trailing
Gore in popular vote counting.[2]

Since Bush first came to power, he and his neocon advisers (most of
whom are Zionists) set up an agenda that has been doggedly anti-
Iran, alleging the latter to belong to an `axis of evil.' Iraq is
now under the U.S. occupation, in spite of not possessing the WMDs,
and North Korea has declared that it has nuclear bombs. This
declaration does not seem to alarm the Bushies as much as the
perceived threat from a `nuclear' Iran. But why, one ponders, when
North Korea (and not Iran) is closer to the USA?

It is ludicrous to think that America, with the largest stockpile of
nuclear arsenals and a yearly military budget of more than $500
billion (almost equal to the military budget of the rest of the
world), is afraid of Iran (whose military expenditure is less than a
percent of America's military budget), even if the latter were to
develop nuclear weapons.[3]

The reason for America's agitation is obvious: Israel. Everything
the neocons and the `Amen Corner' in the Capitol Hill can think or
dream about vis-à-vis the Middle East involves Israel.[4] They are
not serious about a nuclear-free Middle East but about a nuclear-
free and emasculated Arab and Muslim world that could never
challenge the Zionist state. Obviously, no one in Washington ever
dares to question why the rogue state has not signed the Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty, to which Iran is a signatory; or about an
inspection of Israel's main installations at Dimona that house a
large arsenal of around 200 nuclear missiles, as most independent
analyst believe.[5] That is the level of evil, two-facedness with
which Washington has sealed its image!

Thus, when Iran says that it wants to acquire the nuclear technology
to provide the much-needed cheap power (and clean-air) to its
people, the friends of Israel in Washington are troubled. They know
that Iran's becoming a nuclear power would alter the imbalance of
power in the Middle East, curbing the tactical advantage of Israel.
[6] It would be a stabilizing force in a much-troubled area.
Therefore, they complain: would not Iran's becoming a nuclear power
threaten our ally (and rampart) in the Middle East? They
hypocritically argue: "Why should Iran go for nuclear power, when it
sits on a sea of oil?"[7] Interestingly, when asked about the
rationale behind America's (which also sits on a large sea of oil)
own relentless obsession with nuclear technology, they don't have
any satisfactory answer.[8] If it was the threat from nations on the
other side of the Pacific and the Atlantic, should not Iran have at
least the same right to protect itself, now that it is surrounded on
all sides by hostile, pro-American satellite states (let alone
Israel, with a history of aggression against Muslim states)?

After all, whether we like it or not, nuclear power has acted as a
deterrent in many places. For example, since possessing the bomb,
India and China have not fought a single war. Nor has there been a
major conflict with Pakistan after the latter also acquired the
bomb. For France, the nuclear deterrent symbolized the country's
independence from Washington and, at one stage, from the European
Community. Truly, there has not been a single world war since
America dropped bombs in Japan.

Ayatullah Ali Khamenie, Iranian supreme leader, declared on November
5, 2004 during a Friday Khutbah that `developing, producing or
stockpiling nuclear weapons" is haram under Islam. While such a
profound statement should have been sufficient to stop the
controversy, the fact that Washington has not relented from its
accusations show the level of enmity she holds against Iran, since
the hostage crisis.

For several months, the policy planners inside the Pentagon have
been studying three major tactical options: full-scale of invasion
of Iran, surgical strikes of Iranian nuclear and missile
installations, and surrogate strike by Israel  modeled along the
lines of Osirak. None of these options are considered viable for
they would increase the prospect of counter-strikes on American
assets around the world.[9] According to investigative journalist
Seymour Hersh, Pentagon planners are considering covert actions
against Iran[10]. In a talk delivered to a packed house in Olympia's
Capitol Theater in the Washington State, Scott Ritter, the ex-Marine
turned UNSCOM weapons inspector (an anti-war activist now), told
that George W. Bush has "signed off" on plans to bomb Iran in June
2005, and claimed that the U.S. manipulated the results of the
recent Jan. 30 elections in Iraq[11]. Nothing would surprise me with
the entourage that surrounds President Bush![12]

On the day of Presidential inauguration, January 20, '05, vice
president Dick Cheney, in an interview aired on MSNBC, said, "You
look around the world of potential trouble spots, Iran is right at
the top of the list. Given the fact that Iran has a stated policy
that their objective is the destruction of Israel, the Israelis
might well decide to act first and let the rest of the world worry
about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterwards."[13] Is Mr. Cheney
giving the cue to Israel for preemptive strikes? Is there a
connection with the recent appointment of a former air force general
to the chief of staff position in Israel?[14] How is Iran on the top
of the potential trouble list compared to so many more deserving
contenders for the title, including Israel and the United States,
responsible for so much of human suffering since Sharon and Bush
came to power?[15] Who, one wonders, can teach new tricks to an old
dog or a prejudiced man to forego chauvinism?

On February 27, '05 to the dismay of the Bush Administration, Russia
signed an agreement to sell nuclear fuel for Iran's only nuclear
reactor at Bushehr, in southern Iran. The first consignment of
enriched uranium would be dispatched to Iran from Siberia in the
middle of the next year. The deal helps Russia in several ways,
e.g., the hard cash that it badly needs, the future bargaining power
from the G-7 countries (especially from the USA) and resurrecting
its image as an alternative world power willing to stand up to the
bullying and buying power of Washington. And the agreement could not
have come at a better time for Russia given the fact that in much of
the Muslim world there is now so much loathing and apprehension
about Bush's motives and moves. The latter's illegal invasion and
occupation of Iraq has made the country the most insecure place on
earth.[16] So, the deal helps Russia to gravitate the Muslim world
towards her. By all measures, it is a win-win situation for Russia.
And, if Putin is smart, he should not bargain this new image for a
shortsighted tactic that would only seal his nation's fate as a
double-crossing partner. (It is in Russia's interest that it should
look eastward and try to encourage the formation of an Asian Union,
modeled similar to that of the European Union. A multi-polar world
is truly more secure than a mono-polar world left to the mercy of a
Hulagu Khan wannabe.)

The deal with Iran stipulates that Russia will take the spent fuel
back home, a move that guarantees prevention of nuclear
proliferation. Yet, many in Washington are upset. John McCain, the
maverick senator from Arizona, and a leading Republican member of
the Senate Armed Services Committee, accused Putin of carrying
out `aberrational' policies and acting `like a spoiled child.' He
said that Russia should not be invited to the G8 summit in
Gleneagles in July. Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham echoed
McCain: "It is time for the Russian government to pay a price for
empowering the bad guys and slipping back away from democracy."[17]
I am not at all surprised by such reactions from friends of the
rogue state. They epitomize hypocrisy and only prove that Muslims
cannot trust them for a balanced and fair foreign policy.

For the last few months, western countries have been playing the
roles of good cop and bad cop with Iran. While some progress has
been made to lessen the potential nuclear crisis diplomatically
though the mediating efforts of Britain, France and Germany, the
latest report from Reuters implies that Bush is considering joining
the Europeans in offering Iran incentives. The incentives may
include permission, long denied by the USA, for Iran to join the
WTO. If the report is true, offering economic incentives for Iran to
halt development of its nuclear program would mark a significant
shift in US policy, one not welcome in some Washington circles[18]

History is replete with examples of Western duplicity against Muslim
nations. Today it is the USA, yesterday it was France, Italy and
Britain, and the day before yesterday Spain, Holland and Russia.
And the tragic cycle of betrayal goes on, sometimes with newer
faces. The nations of the West must earn their trust before the
Muslim world will rely on them.

Iran has a long and vivacious bazaar culture that predisposes it to
be a cautious and good faith negotiator. Hopefully, an honorable and
just solution to this crisis can and will be found that won't cost
human lives.

http://www.nj.com/newsflash/washington/index.ssf?/base/politics-
4/1109255657174350.xml&storylist=washington#continue; see also PBS

TV discussion "Washington Week" with Gwen Ifill..

[3] See the CIA Fact sheet for comparable statistics. Iran's
military expenditure in 2003 was reported by CIA to be $4.3 billion.
According to the World Bank database (September, 2004) Iran's total
GDP in 2003 was $137 billion, which is less than America's military
budget; America's GDP was $10.9 trillion. (See also:
http://www.sipri.org/contents/milap/milex/mex_major_spenders.pdf)

[4] Philip Zelikow, a former member of a top-level White House
intelligence group PFIAB, speaking on a panel of foreign policy
experts at the University of Virginia on September 10, 2002,
said, "Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against
us? I'll tell you what I think the real threat is and actually has
been since 1990  it's the threat against Israel." (See the article:
Iraq was invaded `to protect Israel'  US official, Asia Times,
Feb. 15, 2005 for details.)

[8] USGS estimates the identified reserves of oil in the USA at 51
billion barrels (the comparative figure for Iran is 69.2). The
undiscovered oil in the USA is estimated at 44 billion barrels
(Iran's figure is 22 billion barrels, nearly half of the USA) (see:

http://energy.er.usgs.gov/products/papers/World_oil/oil/nam_oil_table
.htm). The total oil consumption in the USA in 2003 was approx. 20
million barrels/day. See also:

http://www.radford.edu/~wkovarik/oil/. One should not also be
oblivious of the fact that America caps its own reservoirs from
producing oil while clamoring for cheap oil from outside. Truly, if
prudent methods for secondary and tertiary oil recoveries are
practiced in its oil rigs, America need not be dependent on Middle
Eastern oil for at least a couple of decades. During primary oil
recovery only about 20% (maximum) oil is recovered, leaving behind
almost 80%. (For a detailed study on viscous fingering, miscible and
immiscible fluid displacement processes in disordered porous media,
see this author's papers in the Journal of Physics and Chemical
Engineering Science, published between 1983-91.)

[10] See Seymour Hersh's article "The coming wars: What the Pentagon
can now do in secret" in the New Yorker magazine, Jan. 24-31, 2005
for a detailed discussion on the subject.

[11] See Scott Ritter's comment:
http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/02/1722945.php. A recent visit to
Algeria by Hassan Rohani, secretary-general of Iran's Supreme
National Security Council, was aimed at "sending a clear message to
Washington that Iran is ready to defend its right to possess nuclear
energy for peaceful purposes,"

[12] Quoting a government consultant with close ties to the
Pentagon, Seymour Hersh writes: "The civilians in the Pentagon want
to go into Iran and destroy as much of the military infrastructure
as possible." He also writes, " the Defense Department civilians,
under the leadership of Douglas Feith, have been working with
Israeli planners and consultants to develop and refine potential
nuclear, chemical-weapons, and missile targets inside Iran.
Rumsfeld and two of his key deputies, Stephen Cambone, the Under-
secretary of Defense for Intelligence, and Army Lieutenant General
William G. (Jerry) Boykin, will be part of the chain of command for
the new commando operations. Relevant members of the House and
Senate intelligence committees have been briefed on the Defense
Department's expanded role in covert affairs, a Pentagon adviser
assured me, " (Op. cit.)

[14] General Dan Halutz was chosen by Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz
on Feb. 22 to become the new chief of staff.

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=676920&C=mideast

[15] Since September 29, 2000, Israeli Defense Forces have murdered
nearly 3600 Palestinians, and injured another 30,000. Bush, in his
turn, has killed more than 100,000 civilian Iraqis, mostly women and
children. The death toll of Afghans is estimated to be close to ten
thousand.

[16] As I write this article (February 28, 2005), more than 115
Iraqis died in a mysterious car bomb, with few hundreds injured. Per
international law, the protection of the people in the `occupied
territories' is the responsibility of the occupying force. In this,
Bush has terribly failed.

[17] CNN's "Late Edition," February 27, 2005.

[18] During Bush's visit to Europe, he said that he wants diplomacy
to succeed, while at the same time threatening that `all the options
are on the table.' Interestingly (and not surprisingly), the latter
theme was articulated by Patrick Clawson, deputy director of WINEP
(a supporter of the Administration), in a Dec. 16, 2004 essay 
Carrots for Iran? Lessons from Libya  where he wrote: "If in fact
Europe wants to reach a trans-Atlantic consensus about Iran, then
Europe would do well to remind Iran that the military option remains
on the table." (http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?
CID=2205)

*********************************************************************

WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE

To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
wvns-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/

Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.